PRINCIPAL S D COLLEGE vs REETIKA MANHAS

-THIS appeal has been directed by opposite party No. 1 against order dated 13. 4. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby complaint of Reetika Manhas-respondent No. 1 was accepted with costs of Rs. 2100 and the appellant was directed to refund fee of Rs. 39715 after deducting tuition fee for the month of July, 2006 only, to the respondent No. 1 (complainant ).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Ms. Reetika Manhas, respondent No. 1 (complainant) appeared in the entrance test for admission in M. Sc. Biotechnology conducted by Punjab University i. e. OCET-2006 with roll No. 507394. As per result card, she got 5th rank having 46. 75 marks out of 100 total marks. As per her ranking, she was eligible to apply either to DAV college, Sector-10 or S. D. College Sector-32,chandigarh. However, she purchased the prospectus of S. D. college and applied for admission in the said college in M. Sc. Biotechnology and deposited the admission fee on the first day of admission i. e. 3. 7. 2006 as per influence exerted by S. D. College to deposit fee immediately. The schedule of admission was from 3rd to 10th July as per prospectus. She had deposited Rs. 39,715 under the influence of college authorities assuming that she would not get seat in Punjab University, Chandigarh but later on, on 15. 7. 2006 the department of Bio-technology , Punjab University circulated merit list of eligible candidates of general category for admission to M. Sc. Part-I which showed her rank as number-2 and, therefore, she became eligible for admission to Punjab University which was better option. She immediately approached appellant on 5. 7. 2006 for refund of fee but the Principal was busy in taking interviews and refused to meet her and her father, so, they met the head of the department of Biotechnology Jasveen Dua and also Dr. Naveet Batra but they did not take any action on her request and then she approached principal and submitted a detailed letter for refund of dues but he refused to refund the fee on the ground that she had given declaration that she would not claim refund in case she left the college. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

The appellant as well as respondent No. 2 contested the complaint. The appellant in its written reply admitted that the respondent No. 1 had deposited fee to the tune of Rs. 39,715 for admission. However, it denied that the college had contacted the candidate who applied for Biotechnology course on telephone and forced her to deposit fee immediately to ensure admission. It next stated that it had not received any request from the respondent No. 1 on 5. 7. 2006 but the request was received for the first time on 19. 7. 2006 from the father of respondent No. 1 for the refund of fee and it was made clear to her that she was not entitled to refund as per provisions of the prospectus.

RESPONDENT No. 2 in its reply stated that complaint qua it was frivolous as no relief could be claimed against it and as such it should be dismissed. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 13. 4. 2007 accepted the complaint with costs and awarded refund of Rs. 39715 after deducting tuition fee for the month of July, 2006 only. We have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Sudhir Theari and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had cleared the entrance test for admission in M. Sc. Biotechnology by Punjab University i. e. OCET-2006 with Roll No. 507394 and as per result card, she got 5th ranking and obtained 46. 75 marks out of total 100 marks. Since, there were only 4 seats available with Punjab University so, she thought that her turn for admission would come in S. D. College, Sector-32, Chandigarh, and as such she applied and took admission on 3. 7. 2006 in the appellant college and deposited the necessary fee of Rs. 39,715 as the college authorities had also told her that she should deposit the fee on the very first day. However, later on merit list of Department of Biotechnology, Punjab University was circulated in which she got 2nd ranking and finding it to be better option, she took admission in Punjab University, Chandigarh. She applied to the appellant for refund of fee but the same was refused on the plea that the prospectus of the appellant did not permit for refund of fee in case the candidate left the college.

THERE is no dispute about it that the seat vacated by respondent No. 1 was filled up by another student on 29. 7. 2006 namely Sarbjit Kaur Mavi D/o Sh. Hardev Singh Mavi as is evident from Annexure-X. Therefore, college did not sustain any loss in the event of respondent No. 1 leaving the college voluntarily and joining other institution. Hence, it is not the case that the seat vacated by respondent No. 1 remained unfilled. When Rules 2 to 4 of Punjab University Calendar are given harmonious consideration, then it is very much clear that if seat vacated by a student is filled up, the university/college authorities are bound to refund the fee, etc. and at best they could retain the fee only for the month in which the candidate had taken admission. Respondent No. 1 had deposited the fee for whole of the year and, thus, the appellant could retain the fee only for the month of July, 2006 only.

COUNSEL for appellant contended that it is mentioned in the prospectus that the fee once deposited would not be refunded in any case. Certainly rule of the prospectus is based on unfair trade practice. It is against equity. The college cannot be allowed to get benefit at the cost of student i. e. to charge fee twice for the same seat. Equity demands that the college should refund fee paid by respondent No. 1 except of retaining fee for one month when she had taken admission. Certainly the condition as contained in the prospectus is repugnant to the provisions contained in the university calendar and against justice and equity and cannot be accepted. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.

Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.